Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Nor should it be used in Thomas's instance either.

 

Accused by the relentless unconscionable liars and smear merchants known as the Democrat left. This has tainted you and your party far more than the people that you liars have falsely accused. Tell yourself otherwise if it makes you feel better. But you won't believe it unless you really are mentally unwell.

 

How is Pence not meeting with women without his wife present (even though that is not rule he uses), proof he is not concerned with the rights of women?

Let's see Ted Kennedy killed a woman, Bill Clinton raped and sexually harassed multiple women, Bob Menendez has used underage Latin American hookers, but it's the Republicans that are the dangerous ones.

 

NBC Reporter: Democrats Dropping This Kavanaugh Allegation At Zero Hour Has A 'Deep State Feel'

NBC reporter Jonathan Allen was on The Bill Press Show, where he said there isn’t much to discern from the development regarding if it could derail Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination because there isn’t much to go on. At the time, the letter sender was anonymous, it was kept hidden for weeks, and we didn’t know what its contents were.

“To President Trump’s point, I mean, there’s a deep state feel to this, right? Anonymous source to a senator through a House member, goes to the Justice Department…and no one sees what’s in it,” said Allen. He also adds that everyone in this town holds onto damaging information. It’s the nature of politics. He did say that if this nomination if going to go through, and so far it looks like it’s full steam ahead, then Allen noted that this move is not beneficial to Democrats by keeping this story in the headlines a week closer to the midterms, which could jack up the GOP base ahead of the midterms.

 

How come? You are a federal government lawyer well versed on how presidential nominations work? Or you work for FBI? Where is your expertise come from that you are so sure of yourself?

 

You do know that the FBI has already done a background check on Kavanaugh right? He's already been thoroughly vetted.....so what are you talking about?

 

Yes. Thanks for your input.

 

So you acknowledge the first part, how about the second part "so what are you talking about?"

 

Let's, for fun, address the baseless claims that this is a fake allegation. (the fact that it was presented at 11th hour has nothing to do with it being fake - politicians do this all the time with damning info).

So... Assuming Ford's story is fake. She names four individuals as a party present at the time of alleged assault occurring. Why didn't one of those three individuals (excluding Kavanaugh here, cause he has conflict of interest in view of his SCOTUS nomination being in jeopardy) people offer to refute Ford's allegation UNDER OATH? I mean at least one of them must be a patriot and a true friend - willing to stand up for the truth and reputation of a potential supreme court justice and the sanctity of the judicial branch?

And if you suggest that it might be too much trouble for those three individuals, I think you have just pointed out why their refuting press releases, so far, shouldn't be counted for much since they have a big incentive to just stay out of trouble and national spotlight and thus would say anything to get them out of it? They would have no repercussion even if they lied in their statements.

On the other hand if Ford is proved to be a liar, there will be tons of repercussions for her - she already has had to switch houses and received death threats.

Or is this not sufficient enough argument in light of Ford being a partisan? Some of us here are partisans... Did any of us smear anyone recently?

 

Would you participate if there was no financial gain and you would become infamous for it (among republicans anyway) - all over a 36 year old "grudge"?

 

I don't necessarily think that the story is "fake", she might very well believe it, but it is almost certainly "false" which isn't the same thing. It's interesting that you'd call out those who she named that denied the allegations for not testifying......when she's apparently not willing to do so either. I personally haven't heard about anyone other than her actively refusing to testify, but maybe you have more information on that than I do.

Okay....so their testimony won't count....problem is she NEEDS them to help confirm her story because right now it's just a baseless allegation.

There's no way to "prove" her a liar, she might very well believe her false story but the fact that she has literally nothing supporting her allegation....and she's not even willing to testify should make most just ignore her and move on as if she doesn't exist.

 

Well she was an activist before this with no financial gain and she's the one who chose to write the letter to her congresswoman accusing Kavanaugh of committing a felony....if she didn't want to get involved, she didn't have to. She chose to and now it seems that she's unwilling to tell her story on the record.

 

I can't remember 20 year old things with the clarity needed to take the stand. Thank God post-millennials won't have that nut to crack in the future!

If it did happen the way she described it and it was him, then I can see why she would write the letter and take the polygraph even if it were an exercise in futility. Bit naive to assume something productive would happen but I guess we all get naive and trust the system too much when we are aggrieved and out for justice.

It's a big fat mess that will linger as long as women are a minority in politics.

 

She should have expected her letter to be leaked? She was obviously willing to talk to FBI about it.

 

Absolutely. You don't write a letter to a politician with information they can use against political rivals or to push their political agenda and not expect it to get used and her name leaked.

You say she was "obviously" willing to talk to the FBI about it, but at one point she said she was willing to testify about it....until they asked her to and then she changed her mind.

Also, the FBI doesn't waste their time with allegations of 30+ year old state crimes that aren't credible.

 

You are going back to your unsubstantiated repressed memory point, citation-for-citation man?

I was under impression that she was willing to testify if FBI ran an investigation. I guess if they are unsure due to the event being so long ago, then that kinda breaks my argument. Although they sure sound sure based on their press releases.

That's true. A lot of accusations are baseless until corroborated with investigation though.

There are ways - with an investigation and testimonies (hers and others).

 

FBI "wastes" their time on whatever the president wants during presidential nominations anyways.

Ok. She is naive. That's why you expect her to testify at a senate hearing? Ok...

Are you saying that she said she doesn't want to be interviewed by FBI? Or at one point said that she doesn't? Citation?

 

I still firmly believe that's what happened. If it was a real traumatic memory, she'd remember more. Given that the first time she said anything about this was in therapy in order to explain the reason for her marital problems, I'm thinking it sounds like a "false memory" that often happen in situations like that. I mean, we're to believe that she went from never telling even 1 person for 30 years to telling just about everyone she knew about it for the next 6 years.....and she still doesn't have any real details and no one that she claims was there say that they were there....

She's really big on changing her story when it comes to just about everything. Originally she said she was willing to testify, then she was offered the chance to do so and she now says that she won't unless there is an FBI investigation that the FBI already said that they aren't going to do because they don't investigation baseless allegations of state crimes that are 30+ years old.

Not really, nearly all baseless allegations are false. Most accurate allegations have a solid foundation. Of course miracles can happen though.

No, there's really not. There's literally nothing that would "prove" that she was lying. You could find that it's most likely that she's incorrect, which is what people should already believe given that her story is baseless and so far everyone suggested to have been part of it has denied it.

Sure, but the president isn't under any obligation to waste the FBI's time when it comes to a 30+ year old baseless allegation of a state crime.

No, I would expect her to because she said she would before she knew they'd accept her offer.

Is that what I said? I'm pretty sure what I said was "You say she was "obviously" willing to talk to the FBI about it, but at one point she said she was willing to testify about it....until they asked her to and then she changed her mind."

Work on trying to read that again and see if you can comprehend it this time around. Good luck!

 

I personally believe her. But it seems like she doubts her ability to convince the senators on her own whether due to lack of details or courage. And investigation of any sort seems unlikely at this point. So she doesn't feel like getting "raped" by the guy again, (when he gets appointed to be a justice anyway)..
It is her choice. She can at least make a political statement but it will certainly take a lot of courage and she will face unbelievable amount of vitriol.

Put up or shut up might actually end up being the case here.

ps. republicans had more to gain for leaking the letter btw - that ensured a good argument against FBI getting involved it seems (based on Grassley's letter)